<BR><I>Kimberly Ann Cole of Bre Dance Theater in Tones.</I><P>just came across this, by accident. it may be of interest to some....seems to be 'the' annual list of grant recipients of NEA funding for the year 2000 (so i assume it has been out for a long time now...maybe next year's list might be out soon?) is that how it works?<BR> <A HREF="http://arts.endow.gov/artforms/Dance/00dance.html" TARGET=_blank>http://arts.endow.gov/artforms/Dance/00dance.html</A> <P>note: it's a VERY long list!<P>this is the (american) national endowment for the arts homepage:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.arts.gov/index.shtml" TARGET=_blank>http://www.arts.gov/index.shtml</A> <P>and the DANCE main page:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.arts.gov/artforms/Dance/Dance1.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.arts.gov/artforms/Dance/Dance1.html</A>

Interesting--I noticed that the Martha Graham Center for Cont. Dance was given $30,000. for fiscal year 2000f from the NEA ---how can that be, since they've dissolved?..I ?...I'm assuming these monies were awarded before the whole Graham debacle happened?

And here's the funding for 2001:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>NEA Hands Out Grants To 67 Local Arts Group</B><P>Jesse Hamlin, SF Chronicle<P>The National Endowment for the Arts will hand out $20.4 million to arts groups and writers around the country in the first round of its fiscal year 2001 grants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><B><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/11/DD161453.DTL" TARGET=_blank>More</A></B>

Hmmmmmm - I am afraid I don't get the point.(no pun intended) I am not sure it is possible to compare what is spent on the arts as opposed to aid sent to Latin American countries for hurricane relief. Surely such an expenditure is necessary too.

I think the point of the article, with the statistics, is to show how seriously underfunded the arts are in the United States, giving a perspective on what other exorbitant sums we spend on other projects, and how little we spend on the arts.<BR>Another interesting study would be to compare public arts funding in the US vs. other comparable developed, Western countres. For example, Mexico, spends more per capita on the arts than the US, and they are much tighter economically than we are. <BR>A culture is know by the art it produces...for example, when I travel abroad and tell folks I'm from Seattle, they want to talk about two things: the music scene and glass arts (Dale Chihuly.)The NEA needs our support now more than ever, folks!! Remember that old saying "if you want music,you have to pay the band".<p>[This message has been edited by trina (edited January 19, 2001).]

Trina - good point.<P> If we were to make this comparison between what is spent here by the government and what is spent in other countries on the arts - would we also have to consider private funding? It is my understanding, which could be erroneous, is that Americans tend to give much more privately than in other countries.<P>I know when the orchestra here was in trouble (a fairly regular occurrence) people came forward and wrote checks with overwhelming generosity. The Orange County Performing Arts Center is funded by large private contributions - entire auditoriums and entire productions.

I think one's point of view about this issue Basheva, depends on one's view of the role of government. In France, for example, there is a Ministry of Culture,just as here in the US we have the Department of Justice, Department of Energy, whatever. There is a "Legion of Honor", a French arts award for those who've made major cultural contributions. Ironically, many American artists have elected to this august group, including Paul Taylor, Alwin Nikolais, and Merce Cunningham, I believe. These recognitions came well before, and often in place of, recognition from their own native country. Culture, and the nurturance and support (both financial and rhetorical)of artistic institutions, is considered to be a central role of government in a country such as France. Because, as I stated in the earlier post, a society is often known and judged by the culture it produces. <BR>In this country of course, we have things like the Kennedy Honors. Well, I can't help but think, as I watch those awards, how many of those honored have had their companies nearly go bankrupt or have to curtail operations -Dance Theatre of Harlem, run by honoree Arthur Mitchell, American Ballet Theatre (once run by Baryshnikov). Yet everyone, sits smiling at the Kennedy Center, pretending that everything with the arts is "hunky-dory". I can't help but feel American artists are thoroughly and completely taken for granted. Without wanting to go any further into this cynical diatribe....(whewww!)<BR>It's just a pity, that at the eleventh hour, we all have to go begging to corporations like Philip Morris, private donors, etc.to keep us afloat. Are the arts nothing more than a plaything/tax write off for corporations?<BR>Wake up and smell the coffee,America, or should I say the tobbaco?<p>[This message has been edited by trina (edited January 20, 2001).]

Well,Trina - I agree with you, in every detail. And that being said how much then - what percentage of the country's budget should go for the arts? And how will it be disbursed? Who decides what is worthy and what is not? <P> I agree with the strategic view - the big picture, but it is the details that can bring down the picture. And so it is those details that are important. The danger, that I also think about, is the politics that oftens comes along with government money. I want to see the money well spent - but that means different things to different people. I want the money well spent but how do we insure that? can we insure that? And how do we insure that politics plays as little a role as possible? <P>I think the questions are as important as the overall agreement that the arts should be nurtured and funded. <P>

Basheva, while I agree with you about some of the problems, I stand by my original point which was: "if other countries of similar development can do it..why can't we"? Why not ASK THEM HOW they do--have folks be consultants.<BR>As for the politics of it...well, politics exist at every level and in every area of human endeavor. That should not deter us..we don't need to "throw out baby with the bathwater" so to speak! Havent'we Americans always been know for our "can do" attitude?<BR>Speaking of "government money" being spent...remember a few years back when an investigation of Pentagon budgets revealed hundreds of dollars being spent on a single toilet seat on Navy ships? And other comparable outlandish expenses. Well we didn't at that point, decide to do away with the Navy, did we? Neither should we do away with idea of increased governement funding in the arts.<p>[This message has been edited by trina (edited January 20, 2001).]

Interestingly enough in this morning's San Diego Union Tribune there was a rather large section of the "Arts" section dedicated to "Letters to the Editor" on exactly this issue of funding the arts and the NEA.<P>Before I tell you what was said let me state categorically I am acting here in the capacity of a reporter - this is <u>NOT MY OPINION.</u><P>There were a total of 29 letters (if I counted correctly) printed. Twelve of them pro arts funding and 17 against. I assume the newspaper picked a correct mathematical sampling - but of course I have no way of verifying that. <P>Of the pro-funding letters the reasons stated were pretty much what has been stated here: a culture is judged by how it supports its artists, even in very bad economic times and times of great stress people need artists, art gives us a picture of our times and ourselves, we can afford other things (sports stadiums were mentioned)so we can afford this, etc.<P>Of the negative letters: the arguments were keep politics and government out of the arts, thought the past record for funding artistic projects was abysmal (mentioned the Crucifix in urine, specifically, and photographic pornography, etc.), didn't want his/her money used for arts he/she is not interested in, didn't want arts funded for which the tax payer already couldn't afford a ticket to see, etc.<P>The San Diego county area is not a conservative area by any means. It went quite heavily for Gore this election, and for Clinton the two elections before that, if that means anything. It is also quite racially and culturally mixed with a heavy Hispanic and Oriental population (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Chinese, Philipino, Japanese,etc.)and quite a number of Somali, Black, and native American populations. We have all religions represented with a growing Moslem segment.<P>

Yes, Azlan I suspect that it will always be a controversial area.<P>Basheva, picking up your points:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If we were to make this comparison between what is spent here by the government and what is spent in other countries on the arts - would we also have to consider private funding? It is my understanding, which could be erroneous, is that Americans tend to give much more privately than in other countries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Corporate and private sponsors of the Arts in the US are more generous than in any other country that I am aware of. Countries such as the UK have much to learn from the US about how to tap into private sponsorship. We have recently changed our tax system to bring it closer in line to the US model and we are beginning to see more sponsorship from corporates.<P>However, I do not think it is helpful to combine private and public subsidy when considering Arts funding. From discussions with various US Arts administrators, my understanding is that private sponsors favour the large arts and smaller companies with less social prestige do far less well in the US. It is in this latter area where public subsidy has a particularly important part to play. In the case of Mark Morris and other US artists, who are now important, it has been the subsidised arts structures of Europe which have allowed these fine US artists to prosper. 'The Cracked Nut', 'Dido and Aeneas' and 'L'allegro etc..' were all produced at the expense of the Belgian taxpayers. <P>In the UK, we have some stunning modern dance artists, but their work is ahead of public taste (we are a very conservative country). I am delighted that they can make and perform excellent work thanks to public subsidy. Adventures in Motion Pictures are now a successful commercial company, but they spent 10 years in their growing phase with an Arts Council Grant. There is no doubt that the world would not have their 'Swan Lake', 'Cinderella', or 'The Car Man' if it hadn't been for the public subsidies they received.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And that being said how much then - what percentage of the country's budget should go for the arts? And how will it be disbursed? Who decides what is worthy and what is not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Each country must reach it's own decision. The UK spends <B>far less</B> on the Arts than the continental European countries. However the Arts Councils in the UK (popn. about 60m) spend about £500m of Govt. and National Lottery money on the Arts each year, ie around $700m. Given that the US and European economies are comparable, albeit that the US is more successful at the moment, the $100m spent on the NEA (US popn. 283m) seems anomolously small. The per capita US figure is 3% of that in the UK. To underline the difference, countries like France and Germany will spend far more than the UK. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I agree with the strategic view - the big picture, but it is the details that can bring down the picture. And so it is those details that are important. The danger, that I also think about, is the politics that oftens comes along with government money. I want to see the money well spent - but that means different things to different people. I want the money well spent but how do we insure that? can we insure that? And how do we insure that politics plays as little a role as possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm not aware that politics has interfered in Arts funding here. There were rumours about interference by Mrs Thatcher, but these were not confirmed. The Arts council is funded by the Government, but is at arms length. In terms of who decides how the money is spent - in Europe there are Arts administrators who are qualified in their speciality either by direct experience of formal qualifications or both. Do they get it right all the time? No, but neither do Doctors or any other professional group who have to use judgement.<P>What I have observed in the US, is politicians getting involved in debates as to what is Art? Frankly I have more respect for those who work in the field rather than politicians. <P>I hope that the new Administration increases the NEA funding, which from a European perspective does appear far too small for a country as wealthy and powerful as the US. Perhaps it does not need to be at as high a level as Europe because of the generosity of US private sector donors. However, public monies have a vital role to play with new artists and art forms and i suspect that US Arts suffer because of this. The tiny number of professional modern dance companies in the SFB area tends to support this. I also hope that those who are concerned at the low level of public Arts expenditure in the US will make their views known in writing to the new Administration. <P>

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum